paulhar

I'm waiting on some information too; (1) what clubs were discarded (2) what order your partner played his small diamonds in, and would that matter in your partnership? (3) does your partner ever open 4-card majors (and if so, when?) (4) do the opponents play a new suit advance forcing? (I'd like to try to rule out a five-bagger in declarer's hand)

I tried to find these online - when I have time to learn Polish (the language, not the system :D ), I'll be able to see what these are :)

I just looked it up - I agree wholeheartedly, it's quite cool. If you played Wilkosz, would 2H & 2S be weak, or is there a better use for them? I guess that an improvement would be 2D Wilkosz, 2H Ekrens, 2S normal weak (could be 5S + 4 card minor), give up on the weak 2 in hearts (open 3H if you have to :) )

There's a reason for that. The improving player wants to practice bids that he's allowed to play in club games and tournaments. Some people on BBO have partnerships that are both F2F and online. They don't want to play one system online and other F2F. And, here in the US, Multi, Muiderberg, etc. aren't allowed in F2F at most levels.

Might not be so fine with them as they might have a good game and would have won anyway but now they're not only first but also last. Besides, if they have a bad game, I'm sure the leaderboard would show: 15 paulhar - goodpartner -38.2 13 inquriy - misho +39.2 12 hrothgar - Free +37.6 etc. The ramifications of that score on top are obvious :) I'm not disputing that you have a good idea, actually I kind of like it, but I have to play devil's advocate and piont out the downsides. Those that play with me might point out that the above score is impossible, unless a fast player hijacked my userid :)

So the pair that played 15 boards in 60 minutes would come in first out of 1?

Interesting - in a XIMP tourney where the winner is the player with the most net XIMPs, there is incentive to play fast! Unfortunately, there's also incentive to, when asking about an alert and getting no response, to just play on in hopes of getting that extra board in... On the other hand, in a MP tourney where the highest percentage wins, I'd like to play as few hands as possible, especially if my first result is good...

There's other issues here too. Say the N/S pair is slow on Board 1 of a 4 board round where Board 4 (and maybe Board 3) probably won't finish. To avoid blame, they try to make E/W be slow on Board 2. North has an easy claim but since E/W rankled him about his slow play on Board 1, North plays it out, giving East and West each the problem of trying to figure out what cards declarer could possibly be holding to have a problem. Clearly, E/W will not be that fast on this hand, trying to figure out a problem that doesn't exist, and it will look as if both pairs are at fault for not being able to complete the round.

most people played it that way then too but J.R's point was that it was more valuable to show distribution than controls opposite such a limited bid

I went into 'Explore Bridge' and both SAYC Basic and the 'Learn to Play Bridge software' state that 1D-2NT shows 13-15.

I'm not sure how computing par score helps you determine anything about skill. This was discussed in these two threads: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...6&hl=par+result http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...5&hl=par+result Why do you want this? In this thread: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...5&hl=par+result I was all in favor of measuring the strength of the players but as you'll see, my position was extremely unpopular.

3NT (undoubled) could go for 400 or 500 opposite an average hand for partner. While 3NT might make more often than 5D, I'm not sure it's a favorite with no aces outside diamonds, no spade stopper, and not running diamonds. I prefer 4D, over which I presume partner will bid 5D with suitable hands. Double gets partner to bid 4H and then you can pass (4-2?) or bid 5D (perhaps doubled) opposite unsuitable hands.

I have a possible improvement. The BBO system allegedly knows everybody's E-mail address. Rather than send it to abuse, it sends you your own screenshot (or the last 50 lines of chat, or something) after 24 hours. You have the option in your E-mail to click a link and send it to BBO abuse. I imagine that this will save a lot of such correspondence since I know several times I have wanted to send something to abuse but after a cooling off period, it seemed more like a misunderstanding than abusive chat. This frequently happens with language barriors; and real meanings often come out after the fact. If the screenshot went to abuse, it would be too late.

I presume that if I don't play inverted minors, then I play a 2NT response forcing. This is matchpoints and the most likely contract is 3NT, so I try to get there giving the opponents as little information as possible. (IMO this denies a four card major so partner shouldn't show one.) If partner doesn't bid the expected 3NT, my next bid will show suppport for diamonds.

I don't think declaerer has those 10 tricks - if partner has the heart Ace and King, he hardly would have encouraged clubs. That being said, I led a heart anyway since if declarer has a singleton Ace, partner holding H-Kxxx will have no reason to play the King when I lead low (I hope he doesn't play me for a tricky Qx!) and partner who we expect to get in more often can tap declarer twice. Singleton King of hearts works well too as I would expect to win SA, HA, HQ, partner's trump trick (or unfinessable diamond), or have declarer mercilessly tapped. The problem with clubs is that partner can only tap declarer once. With proper timing, perhaps declarer can give partner a trick when dummy can still ruff clubs.

I'm assuming that you hope the opps play 2S x 3s x as responsive, otherwise it appears that this is turning -500 to -800, or if your partner is stronger, giving the opponents 300 against a part score. Sounds like your LHO has spades - doubling 3S seems like a good option against an uncertain game.

That's a good way to play 2NT cold for a game. 2NT doesn't show a diamond fit so partner might pass with his crummy diamonds hoping that the tricks will come from other suits.

This hand brings up some interesting points. Let me compare to a hand pointed out by Jeff Rubens in 1969 (!) in The Secrets to Winning Bridge. xxx ATx KQJx Jxx AJ KQJxx Axxx Ax The auction went 1H-3H-4D-6D. The point was that 4D was not only a cue-bid, but it showed diamonds, which allowed Jeff & partner to reach the superior slam. Back to the current hand. (1H) 2D (P) 2H (P) 3D (P) 3NT You've cuebid and now that partner shows a hand that doesn't want to be in game opposite a limit raise, you've bid game. Because your partner is in such a tight range, your 3NT could be anything from a bare opening hand to a hand that could make slam opposite a decent opening hand. Your acceptance has perked partner up. 4H is clearly a slam try of some sort, catering to you having the top of your range. It must be shapely, since 5D is strongly suggested as a final contract. The question is, what kind of slam try is it? Ben suggest, a la Rubens, that 4H shows length in hearts. Certainly a reasonable agreement to have with partner. I'm guessing it's the club 'length' more than the ace that this conclusion is based on, if he's using the above theory. Unfortunately, as sensible as this agreement is, it's not common and undiscussed, I wouldn't assume it was being used. Maybe Phil on the actual hand, not near the top of his 'range' should have subsided in 5D (I admittedly constructed a hand that 6D would make on :) ) but the next time a different expert bids this way, I'm still not sure what I would expect!

Yeah, so near the top of the range that I would bid 3S if pard showed 5 with 1S - it's a 6 loser hand...

If their partner has doesn't know for sure which it is, I don't think the 4NT bidder has any obligation whatsoever to tell you. Mind you, if a bid is played some way most of the time in North America and some other way most of the time in Europe, then you have a right to know. But in my experience, most players bid 4NT and it doesn't matter what part of the world you're from, it might be quantitative or it might be BW and both partners are guessing. If you have a regular partner, of course, then perhaps you should tell the opponents. Frankly, I would be at fault in this case too, if I opened 1NT and any of my friends (people I've played 5 or 6 hands with that seemed like we were compatible) bid 4NT, I would take it as quantitative and it would just never occur to me to Alert (but of course I would answer the question if asked.) Similarly with 1C-1H-1NT-4NT. If partner answered aces, I would be mildly shocked, but that just goes to prove that perhaps I shouldn't be alerting it. I guess my point is that without a regular partnership, (and even in some regular partnerships), you know as much as the partner as the 4NT bidder so the 4NT bidder shouldn't tell you what he has when his partner doesn't know either.

OK, I'll try. AK 5 9876542 AT6 When partner cuebids 2H, you respond as if he made a limit raise in diamonds. Can you make game? Probably not, a typical limit raise such as: Q64 T873 KJ3 KQJ, or J86 AK3 K103 9842 both will likely go down in 3NT or in 5D. However, when partner bids a game, you think you have good play for 5D but not necessarily 3NT if partner only has one heart stopper and can't run the diamonds. Even better, if partner has good diamonds, you might be able to pull off a slam, especially if partner's heart stopper is the ace without other heart garbage. Why, partner might even hold: and slam depends on finding the queen of clubs, which should be higher than 50% with your opportunity to count the hand (the opponents' relative silence might help too) More likely though, the hand partner will go on looks something like: xxx, Axx, AKxx, Kxx, for which the diamond slam will score well despite the presence of 12 tricks in notrump. And isn't this hand an easy 2H cue followed by 3NT over 3D?

Long bad diamonds, heart shortness, fear of 3NT.. you kinow what the correct bid is? It is pass, or 4♦. Note, some people play if you bid 4♦ here over 3NT it is not weakness, but rather a slam try... in which case, the correct bid iwth the hand you described is pass, not 4D or 4H. Did I say it wasn't a slam try? Partner has long bad diamonds but a good enough hand to make 5D opposite a hand that wants to force to game. When partner bid 3D, he assumed you had an invitational hand, and he only wanted to play. Sometimes you happen to hold a hand that would play superbly opposite a hand with long bad diamonds but enough strength to bid 5D opposite a game-forcing raise. If you hold that hand, by all means, bid six. That's why partner bid 4H instead of just bidding 5D. If partner thinks that 3NT isn't making but 5D might on the back of his long diamond suit, then clearly both 4D and pass are wrong from his point of view. Partner can't go far wrong if you misinterpret 4H since most of the time you'll just bid five diamonds. In any event, you won't pass 4H, and a lot of the time you bid 6D, you'll belong there. Most of my partners will heartily agree with that :lol: It will be interesting to see what the star player really meant by 4H though...

Maybe you should choose your partners more wisely. (I'm being serious.) Playing with a results player is bad for your bridge.

I didn't respond last night because pclayton said it so well and I had nothing to add. But IMO this is a fine solution. My 2D shows 4 also, but if it did show 3, I would not fear playing 3D on a 4-3 because that would only happen if partner had a 5-3-3-2 minimum (not all that common) and the opponents haven't been too active with their 9-card club fit. IMO, 3D gives us a better chance to get to 4H on a 5-3 than 2S does, as partner will pass 2S on a lot of hands that can make 4H (especially ones with weak spades.)

Not all of us :D I'm not an expert because: - I don't enjoy success at national events - I can read the rules The experts clearly don't meet both of the above criteria. :lol: Yes, I've been shut out of tables that would be 'perfect' for me but it's a small price to pay for honesty IMO